‘Tribe before truth’: Why scientific knowledge without curiosity can be polarizing

img
Image credit: Y. Arcurs

What intellectual capacities—or if one prefers, cognitive virtues—should the citizens of a modern democratic society possess? For decades, one dominant answer has been the knowledge and reasoning abilities associated with science literacy. Scientific evidence is indispensable for effective policymaking.

This account definitely isn’t wrong. But the emerging science of science communication, which uses scientific methods to understand how people come to know what’s known by science, suggests that it is incomplete.

Indeed, it’s dangerously incomplete. Unless accompanied by another science-reasoning trait, the capacities associated with science literacy can actually impede public recognition of the best available evidence and deepen pernicious forms of cultural polarization.

The supplemental trait needed to make science literacy supportive rather than corrosive of enlightened self-government is science curiosity.

Simply put, as ordinary members of the public acquire more scientific knowledge and become more adept at scientific reasoning, they don’t converge on the best evidence relating to controversial policy-relevant facts. Instead they become even more culturally polarized.

What, then, should educators, science journalists, and other science communication professionals do to enlist the benefits of science curiosity?

The near-term answer to this question is straightforward: join forces with empirical researchers to study science curiosity and the advancement of their craft.

Read full, original post: Why Smart People Are Vulnerable to Putting Tribe Before Truth

{{ reviewsTotal }}{{ options.labels.singularReviewCountLabel }}
{{ reviewsTotal }}{{ options.labels.pluralReviewCountLabel }}
{{ options.labels.newReviewButton }}
{{ userData.canReview.message }}

Related Articles

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Does glyphosate—the world's most heavily-used herbicide—pose serious harm to humans? Is it carcinogenic? Those issues are of both legal and ...

Most Popular

Picture1
The Orange Bowl without oranges: Can CRISPR save Florida citrus?
ChatGPT-Image-May-1-2026-11_42_59-AM-2
Viewpoint: NAD is the wellness grifters latest evidence-lite longevity fad. At least the mice are impressed.
global warming
‘Implausible’: Top climate scientists reject worst-case scenario—soaring temperatures and fast-rising sea levels
vax-misinformation-main
Facts & Fallacies Podcast: Limit free speech to blunt social media misinfo?
ChatGPT Image May 26, 2026, 12_06_53 PM
Fake Ebola cure promoters already cashing in as disinformation videos flood social media
Screenshot-2026-04-22-at-12.21.32-PM
Viewpoint: Why the retracted Monsanto glyphosate study doesn’t change the science—the world’s most popular herbicide is safe 
ChatGPT Image May 24, 2026, 03_16_36 PM
Here come the biohackers' Enhanced Games—The Olympics for athletes doping up on steroids, hormones and peptides. What’s wrong with that?
Screenshot 2026-05-22 at 11.31
‘Realistic and durable’: EPA proposes loosening restrictions on some PFAS ‘forever chemicals.’
Screenshot-2026-05-21-at-12.15.17-PM
UK gene-editing milestone: Livestock barley that increases ruminant value and reduces methane emissions is first-approved CRISPR crop
Picture1
The FDA couldn’t find a vaccine safety crisis, so it buried its own research
glp menu logo outlined

Get news on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.